Negative Hyperselection of Resistance Mutations for Panitumumab Maintenance in RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (PanaMa Phase II Trial, AIO KRK 0212).

PURPOSE: We evaluated additional mutations in RAS wild-type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) as prognostic and predictive biomarkers for the efficacy of added panitumumab to a 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid (FU/FA) maintenance as pre-specified analysis of the randomized PanaMa trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Mutations (MUT) were identified using targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS; Illumina Cancer Hotspot Panel v2) and IHC. RAS/BRAF V600E/PIK3CA/AKT1/ALK1/ERBB2/PTEN MUT and HER2/neu overexpressions were negatively hyperselected and correlated with median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) since start of maintenance treatment, and objective response rates (ORR). Univariate/multivariate Cox regression estimated hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: 202 of 248 patients (81.5%) of the full analysis set (FAS) had available NGS data: hyperselection WT, 162 (80.2%); MUT, 40 (19.8%). From start of maintenance therapy, hyperselection WT tumors were associated with longer median PFS as compared with hyperselection MUT mCRC (7.5 vs. 5.4 months; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.52-1.07; P = 0.11), OS (28.7 vs. 22.2 months; HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36-0.77; P = 0.001), and higher ORR (35.8% vs. 25.0%, P = 0.26). The addition of panitumumab to maintenance was associated with significant benefit in hyperselection WT tumors for PFS (9.2 vs. 6.0 months; HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47-0.93; P = 0.02) and numerically also for OS (36.9 vs. 24.9 months; HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.61-1.36; P = 0.50), but not in hyperselection MUT tumors. Hyperselection status interacted with maintenance treatment arms in terms of PFS (P = 0.06) and OS (P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Extended molecular profiling beyond RAS may have the potential to improve the patient selection for anti-EGFR containing maintenance regimens.

Prognostic and predictive impact of metastatic organ involvement on maintenance therapy in advanced metastatic colorectal cancer: Subgroup analysis of patients treated within the PanaMa trial (AIO KRK 0212).

Despite molecular selection, patients (pts) with RAS wildtype mCRC represent a heterogeneous population including diversity in metastatic spread. We investigated metastatic patterns for their prognostic and predictive impact on maintenance therapy with 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid ± panitumumab. The study population was stratified according to (1) number of involved metastatic sites (single vs multiple organ metastasis), liver-limited disease vs (2) liver metastasis plus one additional site, and (3) vs liver metastasis plus ≥two additional sites. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regressions were used to correlate efficacy endpoints. Single organ metastasis was observed in 133 pts (53.6%) with 102 pts (41.1%) presenting with liver-limited disease, while multiple organ metastases were reported in 114 pts (46.0). Multiple compared to single organ metastases were associated with less favorable PFS (HR 1.48, 95% CI 1.13-1.93; P = .004) and OS (HR 1.37, 95% CI 0.98-1.93; P = .068) of maintenance therapy. While metastatic spread involving one additional extrahepatic site was not associated with clearly impaired survival compared to liver-limited disease, pts with liver metastasis plus ≥two additional sites demonstrated less favorable PFS (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.30-2.83; P < .001), and OS (HR 2.38, 95% CI 1.51-3.76; P < .001) of maintenance therapy. Pmab-containing maintenance therapy appeared active in both pts with multiple (HR 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39-0.86; P = .006) as well as to a lesser numerical extent in pts with single organ metastasis (HR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.57-1.21; P = .332; Interaction P = .183). These data may support clinical decisions when EGFR-based maintenance therapy is considered.

Key Prognostic Factors Create a Composite Risk Score to Stratify Patients into High- and Low-Treatment Benefit Groups: A Multicenter, Retrospective Data Analysis of 84 Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients Treated with Regorafenib as Part of the CORRECT and CONSIGN Trials.

INTRODUCTION: In further-line mCRC treatment, median progression-free survival (PFS) is rather short, and many patients do not benefit from any antitumor treatment and should therefore be treated according to best-supportive care. A risk score based on standard laboratory values using markers of tumor inflammation aims to define a patient cohort with high treatment benefit and might offer insights into tumor biology. As regorafenib has been dropped off the German market due to an unfavorable risk-benefit ratio, patient selection is key for any further-line treatment option. METHODS: We used Cox regression analysis to determine laboratory markers that are independent prognostic factors of OS and PFS outcome. The influence of these variables was weighted using an estimator, which was calculated using Cox regression analysis. The estimators were implemented as multiplication factors, resulting in a risk score. A cut-off value for the resulting risk values was then determined via Cox regression analysis resulting in a low- and high-risk subgroup. RESULTS: Using data of 82 patients, a risk score identifying long-term survival in patients with last-line mCRC treatment could be calculated. The following parameters were associated with significantly longer survival in multivariate analysis: NLR ≤5 (p = <0.001), AP ≤200 U/L (p = 0.001), CRP ≤3.2 mg/dL (p = <0.001). The following estimator values were used to calculate a risk score: NLR: 0.132 (p = 0.046), AP: 0.004 (p = 0.014), and CRP: 0.032 (p = 0.039). Implementing the estimators as multiplication factors yielded the following risk score: 0.132*NLR + 0.004*AP + 0.032*CRP = Risk value. Cox regression resulted in low- and high-risk subgroups with risk values below and above 1.4, respectively. In the group with a low-risk score (<1.4), patients had a median OS of 10.5 months after initiating regorafenib. Patients with a high-risk score (>1.4) survived only 3.3 months after starting therapy with regorafenib (n = 43, p < 0.001, HR = 3.76). CONCLUSIONS: The presented composite risk score stratifies patients into two prognostic subgroups characterized by standard laboratory values. Patients with signs of systemic inflammation characterized by elevated NLR, AP, and CRP have a high composite risk score and a significant shorter overall survival. Although this score needs to be prospectively validated in larger cohorts, it may be used to stratify patients suitable for further-line treatment studies.

Health-related quality of life in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated with fluorouracil and folinic acid with or without panitumumab as maintenance therapy: a prespecified secondary analysis of the PanaMa (AIO KRK 0212) trial.

BACKGROUND: The PanaMa trial demonstrated significant benefit in progression-free survival with the addition of panitumumab (Pmab) to fluorouracil and folinic acid (FU/FA) as maintenance therapy following first-line induction therapy with FOLFOX/Pmab in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Here, we report health-related quality of life (HRQOL) analyses from the PanaMa trial. METHODS: HRQOL outcomes were evaluated using European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) at every cycle of therapy until disease progression/death. HRQOL outcomes were mean and individual changes in EORTC QLQ-C30 from baselines (before induction therapy and before maintenance therapy) to each cycle of treatment. Comparative analyses were performed by randomisation status and treatment arm for induction- and maintenance-therapy, respectively. The trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01991873). RESULTS: At least one HRQOL questionnaire was completed by a total of 349/377 (93%) patients who received induction therapy, and by 237/248 (96%) patients who were randomised and received maintenance therapy. During induction therapy, most HRQOL dimensions remained stable or showed improvement, while appetite loss and diarrhoea significantly deteriorated. During maintenance therapy, HRQOL dimensions remained stable, while those that deteriorated during induction therapy showed significant improvement, without significant differences between the treatment arms. CONCLUSION: Maintenance therapy improves HRQOL dimensions that initially deteriorated during induction therapy while stabilising HRQOL in other dimensions. The addition of Pmab to FU/FA as maintenance therapy in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer prolongs progression-free survival without negative impact on HRQOL.

[Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting]. / Chemotherapieinduzierte Nausea und Emesis.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and the subsequent vomiting (CINV) are adverse effects of cancer treatment associated with considerable burden for the patient. CINV has a significant negative impact on quality of life. The consequent loss of fluids and electrolytes can lead to impaired renal function or weight loss, which may lead to hospitalization. If CINV later results in anticipatory vomiting, this complicates both CINV prophylaxis and further chemotherapy, which can endanger the continuation of cancer treatment. The introduction of high-dose dexamethasone as well as 5­HT3 and NK1 receptor antagonists has led to a significant improvement of CINV prophylaxis since the 1990s. Recommendations on CINV prophylaxis are in available in guidelines. Adherence to these guidelines results in better outcomes.

Primary prophylaxis of invasive fungal diseases in patients with haematological malignancies: 2022 update of the recommendations of the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society for Haematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO).

Patients with haematological malignancies (HM) are at high risk of developing invasive fungal disease (IFD) with high morbidity and attributable mortality. We reviewed data published until September 2021 to update the 2017 antifungal prophylaxis recommendations of the German Society of Haematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO). The strong recommendation to administer antifungal prophylaxis in patients with HM with long-lasting neutropenia, i.e. <500 cells/µL for >7 days remains unchanged. Posaconazole remains the drug of choice for mould-active prophylaxis in these patients. Novel treatment options in HM, such as CAR-T-cell treatment or novel targeted therapies for acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) were considered, however, data are insufficient to give general recommendations for routine antifungal prophylaxis in these patients. Major changes regarding specific recommendations compared to the 2017 edition are the now moderate instead of mild support for the recommendations of isavuconazole and voriconazole. Furthermore, published evidence on micafungin allows recommending it at moderate strength for its use in HM. For the first time we included recommendations for non-pharmaceutical measures regarding IFD, comprising the use of high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters, smoking, measures during construction work and neutropenic diets. We reviewed the impact of antifungal prophylaxis with triazoles on drug-drug interactions with novel targeted therapies that are metabolized via cytochrome p450 where triazoles inhibit CYP3A4/5. The working group recommends reducing the dose of venetoclax when used concomitantly with strong CYP3A4 inhibiting antifungals. Furthermore, we reviewed data on the prophylactic use of novel antifungal agents. Currently there is no evidence to support their use in a prophylactic setting in clinical practice.

FOLFOXIRI Plus Cetuximab or Bevacizumab as First-Line Treatment of BRAFV600E-Mutant Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The Randomized Phase II FIRE-4.5 (AIO KRK0116) Study.

PURPOSE: BRAFV600E mutation is associated with a poor outcome in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This clinical trial investigated the efficacy of triplet chemotherapy (fluorouracil, folinic acid, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) combined with either cetuximab or bevacizumab in patients with previously untreated BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this controlled, randomized, open-label phase II trial, 109 patients were randomly assigned, 107 of whom were included into the full analysis set (FAS). Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either FOLFOXIRI plus cetuximab in the experimental arm (n = 72) or FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab in the control arm (n = 35). The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) according to RECIST 1.1., evaluated in patients treated according to protocol (ATP population). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), toxicity, and feasibility were analyzed as secondary end points. RESULTS: Eighteen patients discontinued study treatment before the first tumor assessment, thus resulting in the ATP population of 89 patients. In these patients, ORR was 51% (30/59) in the cetuximab-based experimental arm and 67% (20/30) in the bevacizumab-based control arm (odds ratio, 1.93; 80% CI, 1.06 to 3.52; P = .92 [one-sided]). In the full analysis set, median PFS was significantly inferior in the experimental arm (6.7 months v 10.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 1.89; P = .006). Median OS analyzed at an event rate of 64.5% showed a trend toward shorter survival in cetuximab-treated patients (12.9 months v 17.1 months; HR, 1.4; P = .20). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, FIRE-4.5 is the first prospective and randomized study investigating first-line treatment of BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC. FOLFOXIRI plus cetuximab does not induce a higher ORR when compared with FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab in first-line treatment of BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC. Bevacizumab-based chemotherapy remains the preferable first-line treatment of patients with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC.

Consensus Molecular Subtypes as Biomarkers of Fluorouracil and Folinic Acid Maintenance Therapy With or Without Panitumumab in RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (PanaMa, AIO KRK 0212).

PURPOSE: Consensus molecular subtypes (CMSs) were evaluated as prognostic and predictive biomarkers of patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) receiving fluorouracil and folinic acid (FU/FA) with or without panitumumab (Pmab) after Pmab + mFOLFOX6 induction within the randomized phase II PanaMa trial. METHODS: CMSs were determined in the safety set (ie, patients that received induction) and full analysis set (FAS; ie, randomly assigned patients who received maintenance) and correlated with median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) since the start of induction or maintenance treatment and objective response rates (ORRs). Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CI were calculated by univariate/multivariate Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: Of 377 patients of the safety set, 296 (78.5%) had available CMS data: CMS1/2/3/4: 29 (9.8%)/122 (41.2%)/33 (11.2%)/112 (37.8%) and unclassifiable: 17 (5.7%). The CMSs were prognostic biomarkers in terms of PFS (P < .0001), OS (P < .0001), and ORR (P = .02) since the start of induction treatment. In FAS patients (n = 196), with CMS2/4 tumors, the addition of Pmab to FU/FA maintenance therapy was associated with longer PFS (CMS2: HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.36 to 0.95], P = .03; CMS4: HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.38 to 1.03], P = .07) and OS (CMS2: HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.52 to 1.52], P = .66; CMS4: HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.30 to 0.96], P = .04). The CMS interacted significantly with treatment in terms of PFS (CMS2 v CMS1/3: P = .02; CMS4 v CMS1/3: P = .03) and OS (CMS2 v CMS1/3: P = .03; CMS4 v CMS1/3: P < .001). CONCLUSION: The CMS had a prognostic impact on PFS, OS, and ORR in RAS wild-type mCRC. In PanaMa, Pmab + FU/FA maintenance was associated with beneficial outcomes in CMS2/4, whereas no benefit was observed in CMS1/3 tumors.

AGIHO guideline on evidence-based management of COVID-19 in cancer patients: 2022 update on vaccination, pharmacological prophylaxis and therapy in light of the omicron variants.

The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and the associated infectious disease COVID-19 pose a significant challenge to healthcare systems worldwide. Patients with cancer have been identified as a high-risk population for severe infections, rendering prophylaxis and treatment strategies for these patients particularly important. Rapidly evolving clinical research, resulting in the recent advent of various vaccines and therapeutic agents against COVID-19, offers new options to improve care and protection of cancer patients. However, ongoing epidemiological changes and rise of new virus variants require repeated revisions and adaptations of prophylaxis and treatment strategies to meet these new challenges. Therefore, this guideline provides an update on evidence-based recommendations with regard to vaccination, pharmacological prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 in cancer patients in light of the currently dominant omicron variants. It was developed by an expert panel of the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) based on a critical review of the most recent available data.

Depth of response of induction therapy and consecutive maintenance treatment in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: An analysis of the PanaMa trial (AIO KRK 0212).

BACKGROUND: In patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer, depth of response (DpR) has gained importance as a novel end-point in clinical trials. We investigated the overall DpR, as well as the prognostic and predictive impact of DpR to induction therapy (six cycles of 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin [FU/FA], oxaliplatin [FOLFOX] and panitumumab [Pmab]) on consecutive maintenance therapy (FU/FA plus Pmab or FU/FA alone) in patients treated within the PanaMa trial. METHODS: Central radiological assessment was performed according to RECIST 1.1. DpR was defined as percentage change in tumour diameter within defined time intervals (induction therapy, maintenance therapy, total course of therapy). For prognostic and predictive analyses, median DpR (

Second-line therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab for older patients with oesophageal squamous cell cancer (RAMONA): a multicentre, open-label phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The overall survival of patients with advanced and refractory oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma, mostly aged 65 years and older, is poor. Treatment with PD-1 antibodies showed improved progression-free survival and overall survival. We assessed the safety and efficacy of combined nivolumab and ipilimumab therapy in this population. METHODS: This multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial done in 32 sites in Germany included patients aged 65 years and older with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma and disease progression or recurrence following first-line therapy. Patients were treated with nivolumab (240 mg fixed dose once every 2 weeks, intravenously) in the safety run-in phase and continued with nivolumab and ipilimumab (nivolumab 240 mg fixed dose once every 2 weeks and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg once every 6 weeks, intravenously). The primary endpoint was overall survival, which was compared with a historical cohort receiving standard chemotherapy in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03416244. FINDINGS: Between March 2, 2018, and Aug 20, 2020, we screened 75 patients with advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. We enrolled 66 patients (50 [76%] men and 16 [24%] women; median age 70·5 years [IQR 67·0-76·0]), 44 (67%) of whom received combined nivolumab and ipilimumab therapy and 22 (33%) received nivolumab alone. Median overall survival time at the prespecified data cutoff was 7·2 months (95% CI 5·7-12·4) and significantly higher than in a historical cohort receiving standard chemotherapy (p=0·0063). The most common treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (12 [29%] of 42), nausea (11 [26%]), and diarrhoea (ten [24%]). Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 13 (20%) of 66 patients. Treatment-related death occurred in one patient with bronchiolitis obliterans while on nivolumab and ipilimumab treatment. INTERPRETATION: Patients aged at least 65 years, with advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma might benefit from combined nivolumab and ipilimumab therapy in second-line treatment. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

FOLFOX plus panitumumab or FOLFOX alone as additive therapy following R0/1 resection of RAS wild-type colorectal cancer liver metastases - The PARLIM trial (AIO KRK 0314).

PURPOSE: This trial investigates the addition of panitumumab to chemotherapy with fluorouracil/folinic acid and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) in a 2:1 randomised, controlled, open-label, phase II trial in RAS wild-type colorectal cancer patients with R0/1-resected liver metastases. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) two years after randomisation. The experimental arm (12 weeks of biweekly mFOLFOX6 plus panitumumab followed by 12 weeks of panitumumab alone) was considered active if the two-year PFS rate was ≥65%. Based on historical data, a two-year PFS rate of 50% was estimated in the control arm (12 weeks of biweekly FOLFOX). The trial was performed with a power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and toxicity. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01384994. RESULTS: The full analysis set consists of 70 patients (pts) in the experimental arm and 36 pts in the control arm. The primary endpoint was missed with a two-year PFS of 35.7% with FOLFOX plus panitumumab and 30.6% in the control arm. In comparative analyses, trends towards improved PFS (HR 0.83; 95%CI, 0.52-1.33; P = 0.44) and OS (HR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.34-1.46; P = 0.34) were observed in favour of the panitumumab-based study arm. No new or unexpected safety signals were observed with FOLFOX plus panitumumab following liver resection. CONCLUSION: The PARLIM trial failed to demonstrate a two-year PFS rate of 65% after resection of colorectal liver metastases. The positive trends in survival endpoints may support future trials evaluating treatment with anti-EGFR agents after resection of liver metastases.

Quality of Life Effects of an Oral Fixed Combination of Netupitant and Palonosetron in Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Prevention: Real-World Evidence in Patients with Breast Cancer Receiving Anthracycline-Cyclophosphamide-Based Chemotherapy.

Introduction: In a prospective non-interventional study involving 2,173 patients, we showed that use of the oral fixed combination of netupitant 300 mg and palonosetron 0.5 mg (NEPA) for prevention of chemotherapy (Ctx)-induced nausea and vomiting has beneficial effects on the quality of life (QoL) of patients with various types of cancers receiving highly or moderately emetogenic Ctx. Here, we report on the effects on QoL, effectiveness, and tolerability of NEPA in patients with breast cancer exposed to anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based Ctx. Methods: This is a post hoc subanalysis of a prospective non-interventional study in 1,197 patients with breast cancer receiving up to 3 cycles of doxorubicin or epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide and NEPA. NEPA administration was per the summary of product characteristics. Results: In cycle 1 of Ctx, a large proportion of patients (84%) reported "no impact on daily life" (NIDL) due to vomiting; 53% of patients reported NIDL due to nausea. The complete response rate was 86/88/81% in the acute/delayed/overall phase in cycle 1, and NEPA was well tolerated throughout the study. Conclusion: The real-world beneficial effects of NEPA prophylaxis on QoL were confirmed for patients with breast cancer receiving AC. NEPA was effective with a good safety profile in this patient population in clinical practice.

Netupitant-palonosetron (NEPA) for Preventing Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting: From Clinical Trials to Daily Practice.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common adverse event associated with many anticancer therapies and can negatively impact patients' quality of life and potentially limit the effectiveness of chemotherapy. Currently, CINV can be prevented in most patients with guideline-recommended antiemetic regimens. However, clinicians do not always follow guidelines, and patients often face difficulties adhering to their prescribed treatments. Therefore, approaches to increase guideline adherence need to be implemented. NEPA is the first and only fixed combination antiemetic, composed of netupitant (oral)/fosnetupitant (intravenous) and palonosetron, which, together with dexamethasone, constitute a triple antiemetic combination recommended for the prevention of CINV for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy and for certain patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Thus, NEPA offers a convenient and straightforward antiemetic treatment that could improve adherence to guidelines. This review provides an overview of CINV, evaluates the accumulated evidence of NEPA's antiemetic activity and safety from clinical trials and real-world practice, and examines the preliminary evidence of antiemetic control with NEPA in daily clinical settings beyond those described in pivotal trials. Moreover, we review the utility of NEPA in controlling nausea and preserving patients' quality of life during chemotherapy, two major concerns in managing patients with cancer.

Translational analysis and final efficacy of the AVETUX trial - Avelumab, cetuximab and FOLFOX in metastatic colorectal cancer.

Introduction: In metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), the efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) has so far been limited to patients with microsatellite instability high tumors (MSI-H). Unfortunately, most mCRC patients suffer from non-immunogenic microsatellite stable (MSS) tumors. Therefore, new combinatorial strategies are urgently needed to enhance the immunogenicity of MSS tumors to finally increase the number of patients benefiting from ICB. Methods: The AVETUX trial aimed to combine the PD-L1 antibody avelumab with the standard of care chemotherapy combination FOLFOX and the anti-EGFR antibody cetuximab. Furthermore, we performed a central radiological review of the pre- and on-treatment computed tomography scans to better define the individual response to treatment. Results and Discussion: In total, 43 patients were treated of which 39 patients were confirmed as RAS/BRAF wildtype in central tissue review and finally response evaluated. A final progression-free survival (PFS) of 11.1 (range: 0.8 to 22.3 months) and a herein updated final overall survival (OS) of 32.9 months (range: 0.8 to 47.1 months) was reached. We observed a strong median depth of response of 67.5% tumor shrinkage and deepness of response correlated significantly with survival. On the other hand, early tumor shrinkage was not an indicator of better outcome at a cut-off of 20% (median values). In a next step, we correlated the individual best radiological response with potential ICB response biomarkers and found that the clonality and diversity, but not frequency of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TiLs) and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), strongly correlated with response. In summary, we report the final overall survival of the AVETUX trial and propose T cell clonality and diversity as a potential marker to predict response to chemo-immunotherapy combinations in MSS mCRC by performing a central radiological review. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier (NCT03174405).

Panitumumab Plus Fluorouracil and Folinic Acid Versus Fluorouracil and Folinic Acid Alone as Maintenance Therapy in RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The Randomized PANAMA Trial (AIO KRK 0212).

PURPOSE: The randomized PANAMA trial investigated the efficacy of panitumumab (Pmab) when added to maintenance therapy with fluorouracil and folinic acid (FU/FA) in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: Following first-line induction therapy with six cycles of FU/FA and oxaliplatin plus Pmab, responding patients (stable disease or partial or complete remission) were randomly assigned (1:1, open-label) to maintenance treatment with either FU/FA plus Pmab or FU/FA alone. The primary objective was to demonstrate superiority of progression-free survival (PFS, time from random assignment until progression or death) in favor of FU/FA plus Pmab with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75, a power of 80%, and a significance level of 10%. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate of maintenance therapy, and toxicity. Survival end points were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by log-rank test and Cox regressions. Dichotomous variables were compared by Fisher's exact test; odds ratios were indicated when appropriate. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01991873). RESULTS: Overall, 248 patients were randomly assigned and received maintenance therapy with either FU/FA plus Pmab (125 patients) or FU/FA alone (123 patients). At data cutoff, with 218 events (of 218 needed), PFS of maintenance therapy was significantly improved with FU/FA plus Pmab (8.8 months v 5.7 months; HR, 0.72; 80% CI, 0.60 to 0.85; P = .014). Overall survival (event rate 54%) numerically favored the FU/FA plus Pmab arm (28.7 months v 25.7 months; HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.18; P = .32). Objective response rates were 40.8% in patients receiving FU/FA plus Pmab versus 26.0% in patients receiving FU/FA alone (odds ratio, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.14 to 3.36; P = .02). The most frequent Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event grade ≥ 3 event during maintenance therapy was skin rash (7.2%). CONCLUSION: In RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer, maintenance therapy with FU/FA plus Pmab induced a significantly superior PFS compared with FU/FA alone. If active maintenance therapy is aspired following induction therapy with FU/FA and oxaliplatin plus Pmab, FU/FA plus Pmab appears to be the most favorable option.

PD-L1 targeting and subclonal immune escape mediated by PD-L1 mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: In patients with microsatellite stable (MSS) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), immune checkpoint blockade is ineffective, and combinatorial approaches enhancing immunogenicity need exploration. METHODS: We treated 43 patients with predominantly microsatellite stable RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC on a phase II trial combining chemotherapy with the epidermal growth factor receptor antibody cetuximab and the programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody avelumab. We performed next-generation gene panel sequencing for mutational typing of tumors and liquid biopsy monitoring as well as digital droplet PCR to confirm individual mutations. Translational analyses included tissue immunohistochemistry, multispectral imaging and repertoire sequencing of tumor-infiltrating T cells. Detected PD-L1 mutations were mechanistically validated in CRISPR/Cas9-generated cell models using qRT-PCR, immunoblotting, flow cytometry, complement-dependent cytotoxicity assay, antibody-dependent cytotoxicity by natural killer cell degranulation assay and LDH release assay as well as live cell imaging of T cell mediated tumor cell killing. RESULTS: Circulating tumor DNA showed rapid clearance in the majority of patients mirroring a high rate of early tumor shrinkage. In 3 of 13 patients expressing the high-affinity Fcγ receptor 3a (FcγR3a), tumor subclones with PD-L1 mutations were selected that led to loss of tumor PD-L1 by nonsense-mediated RNA decay in PD-L1 K162fs and protein degradation in PD-L1 L88S. As a consequence, avelumab binding and antibody-dependent cytotoxicity were impaired, while T cell killing of these variant clones was increased. Interestingly, PD-L1 mutant subclones showed slow selection dynamics reversing on avelumab withdrawal and patients with such subclones had above-average treatment benefit. This suggested that the PD-L1 mutations mediated resistance to direct antitumor effects of avelumab, while at the same time loss of PD-L1 reduced biological fitness by enhanced T cell killing limiting subclonal expansion. CONCLUSION: The addition of avelumab to standard treatment appeared feasible and safe. PD-L1 mutations mediate subclonal immune escape to avelumab in some patients with mCRC expressing high-affinity FcγR3a, which may be a subset experiencing most selective pressure. Future trials evaluating the addition of avelumab to standard treatment in MSS mCRC are warranted especially in this patient subpopulation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03174405.

Posaconazole versus voriconazole for primary treatment of invasive aspergillosis: a phase 3, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Voriconazole has been recommended as primary treatment for patients with invasive aspergillosis. Intravenous and tablet formulations of posaconazole that have improved systemic absorption could be an effective alternative to voriconazole. We aimed to assess non-inferiority of posaconazole to voriconazole for the primary treatment of invasive aspergillosis. METHODS: We did a randomised, prospective, double-blind, double-dummy, controlled trial comparing posaconazole (intravenous or oral posaconazole 300 mg twice on day 1, followed by 300 mg once a day for days 2-84) with voriconazole (6 mg/kg intravenous or 300 mg oral twice on day 1 followed by 4 mg/kg intravenously or 200 mg orally twice a day for days 2-84) for 12 weeks or less in the primary treatment of invasive aspergillosis. Participants were from 91 study sites in 26 countries, were aged 13 years or older, weighed at least 40 kg, and met criteria for proven, probable, or possible fungal disease. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated randomisation schedule with stratification by risk status. The primary endpoint was cumulative all-cause mortality up until day 42 in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (defined as randomly assigned participants who received ≥1 dose of study drug), with a 10% non-inferiority margin. The ITT population was also evaluated for safety. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01782131, and EudraCT, 2011-003938-14. FINDINGS: Between Oct 25, 2013, and Sept 10, 2019, of 653 individuals assessed for eligibility, 575 ITT participants were randomly assigned and received one or more doses of study drug (n=288 [50%] posaconazole, n=287 [50%] voriconazole). Mortality up until day 42 was 15% (44 of 288) in the posaconazole group and 21% (59 of 287) in the voriconazole group (treatment difference -5·3% [95% CI -11·6 to 1·0]; p<0·0001). Mortality up until day 42 in the full-analysis-set subpopulation (ITT participants with proven or probable invasive aspergillosis) supported this conclusion: 31 (19%) of 163 participants in the posaconazole group and 32 (19%) of 171 participants in the voriconazole group (treatment difference 0·3% [95% CI -8·2 to 8·8]). The most frequently reported treatment-related adverse events (incidence >3%) were increased aspartate aminotransferase (AST) or alanine aminotransferase (ALT), nausea, hypokalaemia, and vomiting in the posaconazole group and increased ALT, AST, or alkaline phosphatase, hallucination, increased γ-glutamyltransferase peptidase, nausea, and blurred vision in the voriconazole group. The overall incidence of treatment-related adverse event rates in the ITT population was 30% for posaconazole and 40% for voriconazole (treatment difference -10·2% [95% CI -17·9 to -2·4]). INTERPRETATION: Posaconazole was non-inferior to voriconazole for all-cause mortality up until day 42 in participants with invasive aspergillosis. Posaconazole was well tolerated, and participants had fewer treatment-related adverse events than in the voriconazole group. This study supports the use of posaconazole as a first-line treatment for the condition. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc.

Prophylaxis, diagnosis and therapy of infections in patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy and autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. 2020 update of the recommendations of the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society of Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO).

To ensure the safety of high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (HDC/ASCT), evidence-based recommendations on infectious complications after HDC/ASCT are given. This guideline not only focuses on patients with haematological malignancies but also addresses the specifics of HDC/ASCT patients with solid tumours or autoimmune disorders. In addition to HBV and HCV, HEV screening is nowadays mandatory prior to ASCT. For patients with HBs antigen and/or anti-HBc antibody positivity, HBV nucleic acid testing is strongly recommended for 6 months after HDC/ASCT or for the duration of a respective maintenance therapy. Prevention of VZV reactivation by vaccination is strongly recommended. Cotrimoxazole for the prevention of Pneumocystis jirovecii is supported. Invasive fungal diseases are less frequent after HDC/ASCT, therefore, primary systemic antifungal prophylaxis is not recommended. Data do not support a benefit of protective room ventilation e.g. HEPA filtration. Thus, AGIHO only supports this technique with marginal strength. Fluoroquinolone prophylaxis is recommended to prevent bacterial infections, although a survival advantage has not been demonstrated.

Central venous catheter-related infections in hematology and oncology: 2020 updated guidelines on diagnosis, management, and prevention by the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society of Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO).

Cancer patients frequently require central venous catheters for therapy and parenteral nutrition and are at high risk of central venous catheter-related infections (CRIs). Moreover, CRIs prolong hospitalization, cause an excess in resource utilization and treatment cost, often delay anti-cancer treatment, and are associated with a significant increase in mortality in cancer patients. We therefore summoned a panel of experts by the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society of Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) and updated our previous guideline on CRIs in cancer patients. After conducting systematic literature searches on PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane databases, video- and meeting-based consensus discussions were held. In the presented guideline, we summarize recommendations on definition, diagnosis, management, and prevention of CRIs in cancer patients including the grading of strength of recommendations and the respective levels of evidence. This guideline supports clinicians and researchers alike in the evidence-based decision-making in the management of CRIs in cancer patients.